The case involves a dispute between BC Lokomotiv Kuban, a Russian basketball club, and its player Ryan Broekhoff against the VTB United League regarding the re-registration of Broekhoff into the club’s team passport after an injury. The central issue was whether the club’s request for re-registration, submitted after the league’s deadline of March 6, 2018, could be granted. The VTB United League Regulations for the 2017-2018 season explicitly stated that additional player registrations, including re-registrations due to injury, must be completed by the specified deadline. The club had initially excluded Broekhoff from the team passport on March 6, 2018, due to injury and replaced him with another player. On April 27, 2018, the club requested to re-register Broekhoff, but the league’s Directorate denied the request, citing the expired deadline and the absence of exceptions for late re-registrations. The club appealed, claiming it had consulted the league’s Sports Director orally, but the Directorate upheld its decision, emphasizing that the regulations did not permit re-registration after the deadline.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the league’s decision, ruling that the request for re-registration could not be granted as it was filed after the deadline and no exceptions applied. The CAS highlighted the adversarial nature of its arbitration process, stating that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, requiring them to substantiate their allegations with convincing evidence. The club failed to demonstrate any legal basis for an exception to the deadline. Additionally, the CAS addressed the broader principle that a player’s right to work does not override validly adopted rules governing professional sports. While athletes have the freedom to choose their profession, they must comply with league regulations, which in this case clearly set a deadline for re-registration. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to established rules and deadlines in sports governance, ensuring fairness and consistency in league operations.
The appellants argued that the league’s regulations were vague and should be interpreted in their favor, invoking the principle of contra proferentem (ambiguities construed against the drafter). They claimed the club acted in good faith, relied on the league’s advice, and reasonably expected the player’s re-registration. They also contended that the league failed to exercise its discretionary powers properly and violated fairness principles. However, the respondent maintained that the regulations were clear and that the club’s request for re-registration after the deadline was impermissible. The Sole Arbitrator ultimately dismissed the appellants’ arguments, emphasizing the need for documented proof of any alleged advice from the league, which was not provided. The arbitrator also noted that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the league’s regulations or their application violated Russian law.
The case underscores the complexities of sports regulations, contractual interpretations, and the balance between procedural deadlines and equitable considerations in athlete eligibility disputes. The CAS decision reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to registration deadlines and the importance of clear evidence to support claims of procedural advice or exceptions. The appeal was dismissed, and all further motions were rejected, reinforcing the principle that exceptions cannot be made without explicit regulatory provisions. The ruling serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required to sports governance rules and the consequences of failing to meet established deadlines.